That there is a pornography project would be empirical evidence to the
contrary. That a random page load can load pages with CBT images, genital
piercings, or ejaculate leaking from or flowing over various body parts is
also problematic.
Well, strictly speaking that isn't pornography - because the intent behind
the images is not to arouse, but to inform.
I realise that is being pedantic in definition - but it is important,
because if an image on an article is genuinely "pornography" in the
strictest sense, then it should be removed as un-encyclopaedic :)
All of the images that might be problematic should have educational
validity.
Tom